The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that a lower federal court judge was right in her decision to halt parts of Senate Bill 1070 from going into effect last year.

The ruling comes almost a year after Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation's toughest immigration law into effect and five months after the appeals court was asked to consider overturning the injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton in the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The original lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of SB 1070, arguing that immigration regulation is the jurisdiction of the federal government and not the state.

Bolton's ruling halted four of the more than a dozen parts of the law from going into effect:

The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry alien-registration papers."

The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work.

There are three parts to that part of the law. Two of them went go into effect, one of them did not.

The 9th Circuit agreed that all four of those portions of the law should be halted from going into effect.

"The question before us is not, as Arizona has portrayed, whether state and local law enforcement officials can apply the statute in a constitutional way," the court ruling reads. "There can be no constitutional application of a statute that, on its face, conflicts with Congressional intent and there fore is preempted by the Supremacy Clause."

The U.S. Department of Justice's only comment on the ruling was that they were "pleased with the court's decision."

The problem is that even when they are right... the 9th has become such a worthless joke that it's hard to take them seriously. As soon as I saw that the ruling was by the 9th Circuit (which of course it would have to be for AZ) I glossed over the rest.

RedNeckRaider

04-11-2011, 04:43 PM

Chaulk one up for the shitbags~

BucEyedPea

04-11-2011, 05:45 PM

Oh my gawd...the 9th Circuit AGAIN! Geesh!

orange

04-14-2011, 10:10 AM

Mitch Daniels Backs Away From Harsh Immigration Policy

WASHINGTON -- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) is backing off a controversial immigration bill styled after Arizona's SB 1070. Daniels announced Tuesday that he wants the legislation’s enforcement measures to be retooled to go after employers, rather than undocumented immigrants.

Daniels, a rumored candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, told the Indianapolis Star editorial board that he wants a major overhaul of the immigration bill, which passed the state Senate in February and will be taken up by a House committee this week. The current bill, like Arizona's immigration law, calls for an increase in enforcement by local police, who would be required to ask those they stop for proof of legal residence in some instances.

"I think that legislation will be changed," Daniels told the Star. "I support this, to drop the law enforcement provisions that have been the ones that have bothered most people."

The bill has faced strong opposition from immigrant rights groups, who say it could lead to racial profiling, and the business community. Arizona faced boycotts after passing its anti-illegal immigration law, costing the states lost tourism revenue and legal fees estimated in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Arizona's bill has also proven a legal liability. Many of its contested provisions were blocked by a federal judge last summer, a decision that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Monday.

In light of the backlash against the Arizona law, a number of states dropped their plans for copycat legislation this session, including Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and Virginia.

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the immigration bill passed by the Senate, particularly the provisions that would target individuals. George Raymond, vice president of the Indiana Chamber, told The Huffington Post his organization was concerned the bill would drive out conventions, which contribute millions of dollars to the economy.

Raymond said the Chamber also feared that businesses would have trouble drawing highly-skilled foreign workers to the state if Indiana developed a reputation as hostile to outsiders. He said one such business could be Eli Lilly and Co., a pharmaceutical giant where Daniels formerly served as president of North American operations.

"It's hard enough to get people to come to Indiana, and it's even harder to get people to come to Columbus, Indiana," Raymond said. "If you're a foreign national and you have concerns that you're going to be stopped, and you have other options, you may take one of those."

But Daniels told the Star he was not convinced by economic arguments. He said he simply believed the bill as written would not work.

"We don't tend to believe in things that are policies that are emotionally satisfying to somebody but don't have any practical effect," he said.

Instead, the bill may be reworked in the state House Public Policy Committee on Thursday to focus on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

"The idea I like is to deny them the tax deduction if they're caught doing it," Daniels said. "It's a fairly clean way to get at it, and really employment is the magnet that leads to the illegality."

The problem is that even when they are right... the 9th has become such a worthless joke that it's hard to take them seriously. As soon as I saw that the ruling was by the 9th Circuit (which of course it would have to be for AZ) I glossed over the rest.

Bingo ..... totally worthless.

Otter

04-14-2011, 10:37 AM

Now if the courts could determine what federal laws are OK for US Citizens to ignore when they see fit. 20 million illegal immigrants run with virtual immunity around the country stealing from services they don't pay into and taking jobs away from Americans while spitting in the face of our laws and the people who obey those laws.

As much as the left wants you to believe it's only jobs picking picking fruit and vegetables it's also construction (try finding a job in construction or ask someone who has), carpentry, restaurant business and hundreds of others.

How you can sit here and cheer that our own court system is promoting being invaded by illegal immigrants is a pretty clear indicator on where you stand.

The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.

FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.

Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.

The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.

FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”

The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.

The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.

Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.

“The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.

The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.

But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.

“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."

He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”

Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable.

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

Chief Henry

04-14-2011, 11:39 AM

[QUOTE=Otter;7563862] How you can sit here and cheer that our own court system is promoting being invaded by illegal immigrants is a pretty clear indicator on where you stand. QUOTE]

:thumb:

Chief Henry

04-14-2011, 11:49 AM

Now if the courts could determine what federal laws are OK for US Citizens to ignore when they see fit. 20 million illegal immigrants run with virtual immunity around the country stealing from services they don't pay into and taking jobs away from Americans while spitting in the face of our laws and the people who obey those laws.

As much as the left wants you to believe it's only jobs picking picking fruit and vegetables it's also construction (try finding a job in construction or ask someone who has), carpentry, restaurant business and hundreds of others.

How you can sit here and cheer that our own court system is promoting being invaded by illegal immigrants is a pretty clear indicator on where you stand.

The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.

FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.

Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.

The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.

FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”

The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.

The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.

Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.

“The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.

The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.

But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.

“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."

He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”

Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable.

One hell of a find Otter.

Brock

04-14-2011, 11:55 AM

As much as the left wants you to believe it's only jobs picking picking fruit and vegetables it's also construction (try finding a job in construction or ask someone who has), carpentry, restaurant business and hundreds of others.

LOL. Republicans didn't and don't give a flying **** about it either.

ClevelandBronco

04-14-2011, 12:11 PM

Starving the illegals out (despite the troubling fact that we tend not to let people starve here) may have some impact, but it causes other problems.

Government is caught in a tough spot. Industries that can't go offshore to find cheap labor (hospitality, construction) want the illegals here, and so do many of their customers, indirectly. Faced with hefty fines or prison (don't hold your breath), those industries might have to suck it up and cover the costs of hiring legal workers, but that will surely mean higher prices for consumers.

Industries that can offshore will consider doing so if their supply of cheap labor dries up. Offshoring has a negative impact on tax receipts and legal employment, even if companies are currently dodging some of their tax burden by employing some number of illegals as part of their workforce.

There's no way to round up millions of people, and so-called anchor babies make the task even more impractical. We sure as hell don't want millions of uneducated young people running around with no school or employment to occupy their time.

Politicians that try to address the problem risk their jobs. States that try to address the problem risk losing industry to other states, or they run into opposition from a federal government that is worried about losing industry to other countries and votes to the opposition party.

We are far beyond fucked, and every mitigation has negative consequences.

ClevelandBronco

04-14-2011, 12:17 PM

Add to the above the fact that legalizing the workers that are already here is a tempting way for Washington to put a temporary BAND-AID® Brand Adhesive Strip on the hemorrhaging Social Security system.

KC native

04-14-2011, 12:42 PM

I told you so. That is all.

Otter

04-14-2011, 02:00 PM

LOL. Republicans didn't and don't give a flying **** about it either.

There are some for for the most part you're correct.

And nothings actually changed with SB1070 since the original amendments. This is simply the 9th circuit giving the original changes its nod of approval. Also, they (the are just going to move the challenge up to supreme court so don't go cheering for your illegal pals just yet (Orange). There's still a very interesting law that's being ignored here. I'll post it again:

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

orange

04-14-2011, 02:48 PM

There's still a very interesting law that's being ignored here. I'll post it again:

You can keep posting it in every thread as long as you like, the answer is always the same:

"He did not say, nor did he mean, that entering this country through any means other than the appropriate immigration channels is a lawful act," the statement read. "It is not."

The controversy has highlighted one of the most widely misunderstood aspects of immigration law.

Q: Christie said immigrants in the county illegally are not automatically committing a crime by their presence. Is that true?

A: Yes. "Illegal presence" as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation.

Q: But he was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?

A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail.

It is considered difficult to prosecute because unless authorities catch someone in the act of crossing the border, it is easier to just deport them than spend the time and money needed to prove how they crossed the border. Even in border states, first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted because the court system would be inundated with millions of cases.

Q: So it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but not a crime to be here illegally. How can you do one without the other?

A: It's not hard, and millions of people have done it. People obtain legal visas to enter the U.S. for work, study or tourism and then simply remain in the coun try after the visa expires. Of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, studies show about 40 percent to 50 percent came here legally but are now illegal immigrants.

You can keep posting it in every thread as long as you like, the answer is always the same:

.....

1. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make regarding my post. I'm stating that there's a law out there already on the books that clearly states immigrants are required to carry documentation proving their legal status. That law is being conveniently ignored to this point by the courts concerning SB1070 but will be much harder to push aside in the limelight of the supreme court.

Again, nothing to do with what you posted above.

2. A bank robber isn't committing a crime when their sipping a latte' mocha at Starbucks either. They're already guilty of the crime that makes them a unfit to live in normal society.

vailpass

04-14-2011, 03:33 PM

An interesting little bit down in the fine print:

"About two dozen states this year considered immigration measures similar to that of SB 1070. Most have failed; five state legislatures are still debating the issue."

1070 was meant to bring attention to the #1 scourge of this border state. It's crafters never thought it would stand up in court. You have no idea of the chilling effect 1070 has had illegals here. The climate has changed, there is an attitude of action in the air. The focus is now squarely on securing the borders and halting the drain on our public resources.

You know nothing more than what you read on the internet but by all means continue to act as if you are the towm crier while you stand around waiting for a dutch rudder from some guy you calll huffpo.

orange

04-14-2011, 03:52 PM

1070 was meant to bring attention to the #1 scourge of this border state. It's crafters never thought it would stand up in court. You have no idea of the chilling effect 1070 has had illegals here. The climate has changed, there is an attitude of action in the air. The focus is now squarely on securing the borders and halting the drain on our public resources.

You know nothing more than what you read on the internet but by all means continue to act as if you are the towm crier while you stand around waiting for a dutch rudder from some guy you calll huffpo.

I hear Pearce is going to be recalled. Anything to that?

I also hear he wants to sue three cities because they're ignoring his little law. Anything to that one?

And Sheriff Joe - things aren't going so well for him, either. I heard something about a $100 million lie. Anything to that?

orange

04-14-2011, 03:57 PM

1. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make regarding my post. I'm stating that there's a law out there already on the books that clearly states immigrants are required to carry documentation proving their legal status. That law is being conveniently ignored to this point by the courts concerning SB1070 but will be much harder to push aside in the limelight of the supreme court.

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

Illegal aliens who never had the card issued can not be in violation of that law that you're hanging your hat on.

The law that they are in violation of defines it as a "civil violation," not a crime, with no criminal record and no jail time. The SB1070 is clearly different than Federal law.

Otter

04-14-2011, 04:10 PM

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

Illegal aliens who never had the card issued can not be in violation of that law that you're hanging your hat on.

The law that they are in violation of defines it as a "civil violation," not a crime, with no criminal record and no jail time. The SB1070 is clearly different than Federal law.

You sure like to cherry pick sentences and ignore whats surrounds the rest of it. Let me try:

"Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."

That was easy! Way better than using logic.

orange

04-14-2011, 04:14 PM

That was easy! Way better than using logic.

You certainly didn't use logic; you got that right.

p.s. as before and still:
"Christie* said immigrants in the county illegally are not automatically committing a crime by their presence. Is that true?

A: Yes. "Illegal presence" as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation."
* former U.S. Attorney, now Governor(R) of New Jersey

Otter

04-14-2011, 04:17 PM

You certainly didn't use logic; you got that right.

p.s. as before and still:"Christie* said immigrants in the county illegally are not automatically committing a crime by their presence. Is that true?

A: Yes. "Illegal presence" as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation."* former U.S. Attorney, now Governor(R) of New Jersey

:LOL:

You're a fruit loop. We're talking about 2 different things.

orange

04-14-2011, 04:21 PM

:LOL:
You're a fruit loop. We're talking about 2 different things.

Since you never actually said the great significance of your remarkable find, I inferred that you think the feds can fine illegal aliens for not having their document with them. Which - if that is your argument - is utterly false.

Tell me, cocoa puff, why do you think the AZ lawyers didn't reveal this gem in the court cases and win going away? Maybe you should write them.

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.$100?

sounds almost as serious as unpd parking tickets...

go bowe

04-14-2011, 04:29 PM

Starving the illegals out (despite the troubling fact that we tend not to let people starve here) may have some impact, but it causes other problems.

Government is caught in a tough spot. Industries that can't go offshore to find cheap labor (hospitality, construction) want the illegals here, and so do many of their customers, indirectly. Faced with hefty fines or prison (don't hold your breath), those industries might have to suck it up and cover the costs of hiring legal workers, but that will surely mean higher prices for consumers.

Industries that can offshore will consider doing so if their supply of cheap labor dries up. Offshoring has a negative impact on tax receipts and legal employment, even if companies are currently dodging some of their tax burden by employing some number of illegals as part of their workforce.

There's no way to round up millions of people, and so-called anchor babies make the task even more impractical. We sure as hell don't want millions of uneducated young people running around with no school or employment to occupy their time.

Politicians that try to address the problem risk their jobs. States that try to address the problem risk losing industry to other states, or they run into opposition from a federal government that is worried about losing industry to other countries and votes to the opposition party.

We are far beyond fucked, and every mitigation has negative consequences.a well reasoned and informative post...

thanks... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

vailpass

04-14-2011, 04:30 PM

I hear Pearce is going to be recalled. Anything to that?

I also hear he wants to sue three cities because they're ignoring his little law. Anything to that one?

And Sheriff Joe - things aren't going so well for him, either. I heard something about a $100 million lie. Anything to that?

You don't "hear" anything , you sit a thousand miles away and scan the internet so you can feel tuned in.

If you actually were tuned in you'd know Sheriff Joe has been under fire and under investigation since the day he took office. You'd also know he has won every election in a land slide, some years running unopposed becasue it was futile to go against him. He runs his own show and that will catch up to him but he remains highly popular among the non-limp liberal sector.

You "hear" Pearce is being recalled? No you don't. There is a pro-illegal grass roots group that is trying to gather enough signatures to force a recall vote on Pearce. They need around 7000 more sigs by end of May. If a recall vote occurs it will be a nice waste of tax payer's money, something the pro-illegal crowd seems to think is their birthright.

Anything else you want to tell me about the city in which I live from your thousand mile away huffpo perch?

orange

04-14-2011, 04:35 PM

Anything else you want to tell me about the city in which I live from your thousand mile away huffpo perch?

Yes. They only need about 7700 TOTAL signatures, and they're already 2/3rds of the way there. You don't get out in your town much, do you?

SB1070 can go down in flames and like Vailpass said, it's still had impact...a lot of impact. It has sent a message that AZ is not pro-illegal immigration and there has been an exodus of thousands of illegals from this state...partly because of the law, and partly because of the dramatic construction drop off...but a large impact just the same. Likely they've gone to more immigration friendly states...better you than us. We have and will survive boycotts and IMO opinion will be better off for it.

As for Pearce, he's a tool...but that doesn't mean everything he's sponsored is illegitimate.

As for Sheriff Joe, he's a tool too...but this latest action has been brought by a bigger tool named Mary Jo Wilcox...who a would be assassin shot in the ass a few years ago for selling out for a stadium project...and has never recovered from her brain damage.

vailpass

04-14-2011, 07:13 PM

SB1070 can go down in flames and like Vailpass said, it's still had impact...a lot of impact. It has sent a message that AZ is not pro-illegal immigration and there has been an exodus of thousands of illegals from this state...partly because of the law, and partly because of the dramatic construction drop off...but a large impact just the same. Likely they've gone to more immigration friendly states...better you than us. We have and will survive boycotts and IMO opinion will be better off for it.

As for Pearce, he's a tool...but that doesn't mean everything he's sponsored is illegitimate.

As for Sheriff Joe, he's a tool too...but this latest action has been brought by a bigger tool named Mary Jo Wilcox...who a would be assassin shot in the ass a few years ago for selling out for a stadium project...and has never recovered from her brain damage.

heh.. yes Wilcox is quite a piece of work isn't she? Another in a long line of questionable/shady/downright horrible AZ politicians.

fan4ever

04-14-2011, 08:07 PM

heh.. yes Wilcox is quite a piece of work isn't she? Another in a long line of questionable/shady/downright horrible AZ politicians.

Yeah, we've had our share. You been around long enough to remember Evan Mecham?

RJ

04-14-2011, 10:18 PM

SB1070 can go down in flames and like Vailpass said, it's still had impact...a lot of impact. It has sent a message that AZ is not pro-illegal immigration and there has been an exodus of thousands of illegals from this state...partly because of the law, and partly because of the dramatic construction drop off...but a large impact just the same. Likely they've gone to more immigration friendly states...better you than us. We have and will survive boycotts and IMO opinion will be better off for it.

As for Pearce, he's a tool...but that doesn't mean everything he's sponsored is illegitimate.

As for Sheriff Joe, he's a tool too...but this latest action has been brought by a bigger tool named Mary Jo Wilcox...who a would be assassin shot in the ass a few years ago for selling out for a stadium project...and has never recovered from her brain damage.

So serious question here...no shit stirring....do you guys think that law would have been passed had the construction business not dried up?

Chiefshrink

04-15-2011, 08:26 AM

Mitch Daniels Backs Away From Harsh Immigration Policy

WASHINGTON -- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) is backing off a controversial immigration bill styled after Arizona's SB 1070. Daniels announced Tuesday that he wants the legislation’s enforcement measures to be retooled to go after employers, rather than undocumented immigrants.

Daniels, a rumored candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, told the Indianapolis Star editorial board that he wants a major overhaul of the immigration bill, which passed the state Senate in February and will be taken up by a House committee this week. The current bill, like Arizona's immigration law, calls for an increase in enforcement by local police, who would be required to ask those they stop for proof of legal residence in some instances.

"I think that legislation will be changed," Daniels told the Star. "I support this, to drop the law enforcement provisions that have been the ones that have bothered most people."

The bill has faced strong opposition from immigrant rights groups, who say it could lead to racial profiling, and the business community. Arizona faced boycotts after passing its anti-illegal immigration law, costing the states lost tourism revenue and legal fees estimated in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Arizona's bill has also proven a legal liability. Many of its contested provisions were blocked by a federal judge last summer, a decision that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Monday.

In light of the backlash against the Arizona law, a number of states dropped their plans for copycat legislation this session, including Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and Virginia.

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the immigration bill passed by the Senate, particularly the provisions that would target individuals. George Raymond, vice president of the Indiana Chamber, told The Huffington Post his organization was concerned the bill would drive out conventions, which contribute millions of dollars to the economy.

Raymond said the Chamber also feared that businesses would have trouble drawing highly-skilled foreign workers to the state if Indiana developed a reputation as hostile to outsiders. He said one such business could be Eli Lilly and Co., a pharmaceutical giant where Daniels formerly served as president of North American operations.

"It's hard enough to get people to come to Indiana, and it's even harder to get people to come to Columbus, Indiana," Raymond said. "If you're a foreign national and you have concerns that you're going to be stopped, and you have other options, you may take one of those."

But Daniels told the Star he was not convinced by economic arguments. He said he simply believed the bill as written would not work.

"We don't tend to believe in things that are policies that are emotionally satisfying to somebody but don't have any practical effect," he said.

Instead, the bill may be reworked in the state House Public Policy Committee on Thursday to focus on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

"The idea I like is to deny them the tax deduction if they're caught doing it," Daniels said. "It's a fairly clean way to get at it, and really employment is the magnet that leads to the illegality."

So serious question here...no shit stirring....do you guys think that law would have been passed had the construction business not dried up?

Excellent question:thumb: Because we all know both parties are in the back pockets of these employers in all of these Western States. And as you are doing as good common sense tells you to, you RJ are following the $$:thumb:

Yes IMO the lack of construction makes it very easy right now to act like a True Patriot, but because of the genius economic policies of O'bastard which has crippled Arizona and America for that matter of which the majority of this Nation which is conservative(a la Tea Party) rising up to say "Stop The Insanity" it makes it very convenient for the Repubs in AZ to act like conservatives. Don't get wrong here there are conservatives in AZ but that state is run by RINO McCain sad to say.

Chiefshrink

04-15-2011, 08:46 AM

An interesting little bit down in the fine print:

"About two dozen states this year considered immigration measures similar to that of SB 1070. Most have failed; five state legislatures are still debating the issue."

No, it just goes to show the majority of our court systems around the country are just like the MSMM(Mainstream Marxist Media) they all have a distorted worldview that hates America:thumb:

vailpass

04-15-2011, 10:37 AM

Yeah, we've had our share. You been around long enough to remember Evan Mecham?

I wasn't in AZ yet but have plenty of friends who were.

The first year the Coyotes came to town a group of us that included several of the lawyer persuasion went in on season tickets. Since we were buying at group rate we had to have a name for our group.
Our name? The AZSCAMMERS.

Neither tears, nor prayer nor opposition from influential business groups could sway a House committee that voted largely along party lines Thursday for a Republican-sponsored bill that would follow Arizona's lead and make illegal immigration a state crime in Florida.
That legislation and a similar Senate bill also would require employers to use a federal database to verify the immigration status of new hires.

While other opponents, some identifying themselves as undocumented immigrants, knelt in prayer and two young girls burst into tears, business lobbyists argued the legislation would hurt Florida's tourism and agriculture industries while reducing tax revenues.

"Just the mere consideration of this bill is causing the image of the state of Florida to be tarnished not only nationally but internationally," said Florida Chamber of Chamber Vice President Adam Babington. He said that "will have economic consequences."

It would scare off tourists from Latin American and the Caribbean who contribute billions to Florida's economy and millions to state coffers, Babington argued.

"Please do not make Florida employers immigration officials," pleaded Tom Stahl, executive director of Florida United Businesses Association. "We view it as regulation, which is somewhat ironic given the tenor of the Legislature this year."

Following the lead of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, the GOP-controlled Legislature has focused heavily making Florida friendlier to business including reductions in government regulations.

Others argued that Florida produce would rot in the fields without immigrants to pick the crops and that the bill would be unconstitutional because immigration is controlled by federal law.

Supporters said the legislation is needed because the federal government has failed to control the nation's borders and it would put pressure on Washington to fix that problem.

"Despite some of the rhetoric and the obfuscation that's gone on here today, the main fear is that businesses will lose their undocumented workers," said Rep. William Snyder, a Stuart Republican sponsoring the House bill.

"Somebody came up here and said we won't have tomatoes in our salad," Snyder added. "I would rather eat bread than eat something that was gleaned off the sweat of someone who has less rights than me."

Now 24 and set to graduate next month from Florida State University's law school, he said his parents brought him illegally to the United States when he was 9 years old.

"This bill would totally shatter may dreams," said Godinez-Samperio. "I've been raised in this country. I speak just like you. I think just like you. I act just like you. Why?"

Kevin Lopez Gutierrez, a 17-year-old high school student from Indiantown, said his parents brought him illegally to the United States when he was 5 years old.

"I don't want to go back to Mexico cause I was raised here in the U.S.," he told the House panel. "I'm proud to say I'm an American, but I can't be; I'm illegal."

"We don't want you guys to separate our families from us," 10-year-old Karla Amaya of Clearwater told lawmakers before she and a young friend broke into tears.

Besides up to 20 days in jail and a $100 fine for a first offense, undocumented immigrants would face enhanced penalties if convicted of other crimes. Like Arizona's law, police could check someone's immigration status only if that person is under investigation for another criminal offense if there is a reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

The Florida legislation does not include Arizona provisions also requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers and making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job.

A study by the Pew Hispanic Center ranked Florida third among the states with an estimated 825,000 unauthorized immigrants, or 4.5 percent of the state's population, last year.

The House Economic Affairs Committee approved the bill (HB 7089) 11-7 with most Republicans in favor and most Democrats against. It next goes to the House floor. The Senate version (SB 2040) is awaiting a final committee hearing.

The legislation also has drawn opposition from Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, farmworker advocates and Christian and Jewish clergy.

It's got the support, though, of Scott, who already has issued an executive order requiring state agencies and contractors to use the federal database when hiring.

"If people are in our country and violating the law then we ought to be able to ask if they're legal or not," Scott said.

So serious question here...no shit stirring....do you guys think that law would have been passed had the construction business not dried up?

We already had the "E-verify" in place before the construction went bye-bye, although ignored by most, and actually only increased identity theft locally.

The economy going south certainly played a hand in all of this; had to make cuts in the budget and the impact on assorted programs by illegals had long been ignored.

Our legislators, whom of some I respect, most of which I don't, are mostly a group of "damn the torpedos" types, but the support they got from the general public certainly has to do with tough times.

fan4ever

04-15-2011, 12:07 PM

I wasn't in AZ yet but have plenty of friends who were.

The first year the Coyotes came to town a group of us that included several of the lawyer persuasion went in on season tickets. Since we were buying at group rate we had to have a name for our group.
Our name? The AZSCAMMERS.

You missed out on a special time; he was the most clueless politician I had ever seen; won because a late entry on the Democrat side split the votes...he was good for a laugh/cry at least once a week, depending on which side of the political spectrum you were on.